Backtrack

The story is a complex narrative that his character driven. The drama is an intertwined melodrama of deception, suspense and the clashing of worlds by means of occult practices. "Backtrack" has a well written, very smart component that permeates the dialog, demands a belief in the supernatural, and explores past lives possibilities. On that level the film is excellent, a mature exploration of the ideals. There are elements that begin to wear down the suspense a bit. Dialog heavy, "Backtrack" demands a level of acting that the cast-although all give quality performances- cannot manage in order to keep the energy going from start to finish. The middle part gets a bit boring.

The cinematography and direction that Sands brings is a strong, atmospheric show of his talent. Although I longed for a darker, more intense level of storytelling that would have really had me on edge. Unfortunately this film maintains a more PG-13 tone both visually and in dialog. The real excitement shows up in the final act of the film when the stories collide with some visceral, gritty horror driven moments. There isn't really any gore or heavy torture, but the attitude and feel of the final scenes hint to it. Overall "Backtrack" is a "soft" paranormal thriller, that is more closer to films like "The Innkeepers" as far as horror is concerned. On drama and story it is intelligent, contemporary, and yet whispers aspects of classic 60's British metaphysics/ occult thrillers.

I loved this movie. Yes, it's low budget and one or two of the performances are sometimes just slightly off, but it's a brilliant story that really sucks you in. It's scary and thought-provoking, is set in an unusual part of England and looks great.

The subject of this film could have been interesting, but the production leaves a lot to be desired.

It is certainly not the worst film I have ever seen (keeping in mind I am talking about several oh-so-long decades) but it is not a film I would watch twice.

The main problem with it seems to be the editing. Several scenes linger far too long without relaying anything to the viewer - they just hang there wasting time. One gets the feeling they were left this long just to fill up the time available.

Also in the edit, scenes which seemed about to lead to something interesting just lead to nothing much at all. One is left wondering what the implied drama was all about. A bit like waiting for a big rocket on firework night only to be treated to someone lighting their fag.

Continuity is another big problem. Someone (or some people) were not paying detailed attention! If you watch it you will see. Inexcusable in the modern age when a simple mobile phone is capable of recording details of a scene which can be used to set up the next scene.

As for the acting, well it is what it is. The cast seemed to stutter along like planks in a fence. A shame, because I am sure there is talent there - it either wasn't brought out because of the lack of director's skill (and editing again) or they didn't have the freedom to interpret their characters.

Overall I wouldn't bother with this film unless you have nothing better to do or are distracted by eating a very nice takeaway.

Wow! just wow. Two mismatched Brighton couples travel into the deepest darkest depths of the South Downs in search of their Nazi war criminal pasts and meet the locals, who have long memories. Yes, you did read that correctly. If they had a dog this could have been the Famous Five novel that Enid Blyton always wanted to write but never did. Throw in a perpetual quest to find the village pub and ale, references to the Battle of Britain, Spitfire fly pasts and "strange" locals and you have a truly weird and wonderful mix. I found myself actually laughing out loud at some points which I'm sure were unintentionally funny. I defy anybody to watch the tractor and tent scene and not chuckle. The greatest mystery to me is how Julian Glover, a veteran of the Royal Shakespeare Company and an actor, got roped into this. Julian plays his part very well, as you would expect, but only adds to the problems of the film by acting, underlining the fact that he is the only one of the cast who can. I couldn't help thinking that he was probably more annoyed at the other cast members than anything the Nazi invaders might have done but it no doubt helped him get into character. As one of the characters memorably says "There's no point in pretending this isn't happening." Regretfully, I can but agree. For the unintentional but genuine pleasure it brought me my score 4/10.

How Julian Glover got his name attached to this absolutely mediocre film project is beyond me.

Whereas such low-budget horror films usually have some guilty pleasure quality to them, this one really does not. Or at least perhaps partially saved by some completely unnecessary (but great) nudity on the part of Miles Jovian. I mean to be abducted fully nude post-coitus is one thing, but to be shown with a full erection on display is what I call commitment to the part! I wonder if it was intentional on the part of the director if they decided to just go along with it, but oh to have been on set that day ;-)